Your Nation's Warships, Batch 3

[The Pacifican Islands]

https://www.nationstates.net/nation=the ... /id=888586

Ok, so I've spent the past month kitbashing shipbucket models on my stupid phone and I've come up with something I think is reasonable. Can you guys tear into this for me please? Thanks!

[North Arkana]

https://www.nationstates.net/nation=the_pacifican_islands/detail=factbook/id=888586

Ok, so I've spent the past month kitbashing shipbucket models on my stupid phone and I've come up with something I think is reasonable. Can you guys tear into this for me please? Thanks!

I'm a bit too distracted with all the "it's the bestest ever" marketing speak.

[The Pacifican Islands]

https://www.nationstates.net/nation=the_pacifican_islands/detail=factbook/id=888586

Ok, so I've spent the past month kitbashing shipbucket models on my stupid phone and I've come up with something I think is reasonable. Can you guys tear into this for me please? Thanks!

I'm a bit too distracted with all the "it's the bestest ever" marketing speak.

I should change that. Was trying to sell it to region members

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

20 knots on battery and flow noise and propeller cavitation says rofl. This is because propeller cavitation doesn't care if you're running it on batteries, the lack of water pressure on the surface ensures that you will cavitate like mad at any speed above 4-8 knots.

[Laritaia]

IRL the way the Type 23s made "stealth" attacks on submarines was to run up to full speed on the gas turbines, then shut down the propulsion plant and coast.

[The Akasha Colony]

https://www.nationstates.net/nation=the_pacifican_islands/detail=factbook/id=888586

Ok, so I've spent the past month kitbashing shipbucket models on my stupid phone and I've come up with something I think is reasonable. Can you guys tear into this for me please? Thanks!

The artwork is fine, although there doesn't seem to be any indication of the bow sonar array?

In general, flexible ship modules as a technology and design practice have generally not panned out. Modular basic hullforms like the German MEKO type that can be customized for each customer have merit, but in general the idea of easily-swapped modules has not answered the promise that led the Danes and the US Navy to experiment with the idea. Partly for political reasons (it is distressingly easy for modules with basic capabilities to be cut from the program once they are no longer integral to the ship itself in order to save money) and partly because swapping modules has never been as easy as claimed. And lastly, because while modules might be easily swapped, crews are not.

In any event, the BMD module is probably ineffective. Given the ship's power output and the available volume for the radar, it would have a very short range indeed and would likely only be able to protect itself, not a larger battlegroup. Much larger destroyers IRL like Arleigh Burke still struggle with the BMD mission. The battery won't help power the radar, as for the BMD mission the radar needs to be continuously active. Which means the engines need to be able to power the radar continuously since eventually the battery would simply be drained if it were required to make up for the shortfall in power, meaning the radar could not operate while the battery is recharging. I'm not sure why you'd want a frigate to bother with BMD anyway, this is a very specific mission that requires specialized ships to properly execute. This is one of the reasons the USN has had such a hard time developing a robust BMD capability: none of its existing platforms were designed for the role, and it has been unable to get money to develop new ones from scratch.

I'm not sure what you mean by a "100 MW battery" since a megawatt is not a unit of energy storage. But assuming it's 100 MWh, you'd be looking at a battery pack weight several hundred tons and making up a very significant percentage of the ship's displacement. Silent running on batteries is unnecessary anyway since rafting the machinery can make it just as quiet (this is how submarines quiet their machinery) and surface ships will always be noisier than submarines. A railgun or laser would require capacitors instead of batteries in order to handle the significantly greater instantaneous current. Batteries are better suited for longer term power storage and more regular loads.

A very modern ship with this level of investment in new systems would probably not use something as old as Aegis. Even the USN knows this, which is why Zumwalt use TSCEI instead. Aegis sticks around because it's proven and readily available, not because it's better than other (newer) systems. If you're going to completely modernize the sensors, you may as well modernize the computer system managing them.

From a reasonable modern perspective, it is practically impossible for a modern surface escort to operate offensively against modern submarines using only its onboard ASW gear. Unless that gear includes something like SURTASS LFA, but SURTASS is carried on dedicated ships of over 3,000 tonnes displacement on their own. Modern submarines are just too quiet and hard to detect with the sort of sonar normally used on surface ships, including both towed variable depth arrays and bow arrays. The short detection range means that towed arrays and the like can provide only self-defense detection ranges, not enough for a ship to operate offensively against a submarine on the prowl.

It seems to be trying to do too many things at once, which is a common NS shortcoming. Lots of roles that would otherwise be better served by separate ships have been dumped on it, like BMD and humanitarian aid.

As far as writing, I feel it falls into the same trap so many NS products (especially GE&T products) fall into, which is to be excessively verbose and to spend unnecessary amounts of time describing irrelevant or unnecessary facts in an attempt to impress the reader. An article on a specific class of warship should not be describing the workings of a gas turbine, only specific details that are relevant to this particular implementation. What are "digitally designed aligned edges?" Edges that were designed using a computer? Every ship for the last few decades has been designed on a computer, it's hardly new. You can cut it down to just "aligned edges." The entire paragraph describing the interception of a flight of inbound anti-ship missiles is unnecessary. I read about ships for fun and even my eyes started glazing over. Factbook entries should be to the point and provide the relevant details that a viewer is looking for, like a good Wikipedia article. Paragraphs should also be kept to a handful of lines, ideally no more than five, and most definitely no more than ten if at all possible.



Please don't take this the wrong way, it is by no means a bad ship. It just appears to carry forward some of the same problems from older ships that seem out of place on what is supposedly a modern, state-of-the-art design. And suffers from lack of clarity in purpose.

[Austrasien]

Disclaimer: Not trying to dogpile. I just write slowly this was only the second reply when I started.

https://www.nationstates.net/nation=the_pacifican_islands/detail=factbook/id=888586

Ok, so I've spent the past month kitbashing shipbucket models on my stupid phone and I've come up with something I think is reasonable. Can you guys tear into this for me please? Thanks!

The PVLS is armed exclusively with CRKV-7 (Close Range Kill Vehicle) Sparrow missiles. Despite its name and form, the CRKV-7 shares more similarities with the Russian Tor/Kinzhal system than the ESSM missile it is commonly compared to

Then you go on to describe a missile that has nothing in common with the Tor but sounds an awful lot like an ESSM. The 9M330 missiles don't have seekers of any kind, they are radar or optically command guided by the launcher.

The MPKV-3 Longbow long range missiles are the dedicated area defence missiles of the navy. The MPKV-3 has a range of over 500km, one of the longest in the world. The missile can also intercept MRBMs/IRBMs, such as the DF-21, in their terminal stage. The impressive range and capability of the MPKV-3 stems from its original design as an ABM, but was repurposed and modified to provide a different role. The missile consists of three stages, a large solid first stage, which propels it to its speed of Mach 5, a dual thrust solid sustainer rocket system and a smaller terminal stage, which maneuvers the payload and increases the speed to Mach 5.5. The MPKV-3 uses the eponymous MPKV (Multiple Projectile Kill Vehicle) system. It consists of a group of small, unguided tungsten kill vehicles that deploy in a consistent conical shape. Once the radar detects the missiles and determines to use the MPKV-3, the information is passed on to the Sea Cobra system, which then groups the enemy missiles together and assigns interceptors to destroy that group. When the MPKV-3 reaches its target, just prior to final stage separation, it coordinates with other missiles for an optimum release angle to destroy the largest amount of missiles. Because of this technology, the MPKV-3 has the unique ability take out more than one missile at a single time with a single launch.

Any kind of kill vehicle would need to be guided to be anything more than glorified shrapnel. And there will be vanishingly few instances where this capability will actually be needed - unlike in outer space there is drag, and lightweight kill vehicles deployed from a missile will lose energy rapidly once they are released from their launcher. They will not be able to cover anything like MIRVs or the MKV can cover in space where fuel is the only limit on manoeuvres.

And anti-ship missiles have no reason to bunch up. An ideal saturation attack spreads the missiles out so the defender cannot concentrate their resources against them. A big "missile blob" is the least useful form of saturation. And realistically the vast majority of anti-ship missile strikes have involved individual or small numbers of missiles, not vast swarms.

I'd question why a little frigate needs such a high-end SAM system in the first place. These things are not cheap, even by warship standards, and it's radar is rather modest and poorly suited to the needs of a SAM with a 500km intercept range.

With the standard module, the main anti ship armament of the Surrey class is in its two four anti ship missile canister launchers. The launchers are placed in front of the VLS system, and are retracted into the hull when not in use to decrease RCS. Each missile launcher holds four ENT/SSCM (Enhanced Nautical Tactical/Strategic Strike Cruise Missile) missiles, which are the most advanced missiles in the Pacifican Military. It has a range of anything from 3-3100 km, and can travel at 0.8 Mach to over Mach 2. The exact specifications of the ENT/SSCM are highly classified but it is confirmed to be sea skimming and use stealth technology, with an assortment of warheads, one of which is nuclear. The ENT/SSCM is also reported to use an active radar, optical and thermal guidance system, allowing it to detect threats, even pop-up threats, and respond to them autonomously. The ENT/SSCM uses organic area of uncertainty reduction systems which allow it to classify zones of danger and electronically classify vessels and targets from a distance. The missiles also pack an electronic protective measures (EPM) suite. The EPM suite can work with the guidance systems to distinguish and detect jamming and to cancel out the signal. The suite also has extreme frequency agility, which allows it to jump through frequencies within fractions of a millisecond, which foils most ECM systems, as they cannot predict and detect which frequency the missile is using, and can divert the missile to use up to a dozen different frequencies at the same time, which reduces the power of the jammer immensely. In the case where the jamming cannot be overcome, the suite will switch over navigation to a separate system, to completely mitigate the problem of jamming. The missiles are loaded with a reaction control system with 8 rocket nozzles (three at the rear) allowing for faster control and movement during its high speed terminal phase. Each missile also packs a single flare each and a single load of chaff, in hopes of diverting point defense missiles. The ENT/SSCM also scans known maps of the area of its operation, allowing it to use natural barriers like islands to shield it from detection. After firing, the ENT/SSCM soars to a high altitude, using its stealthy form to hide from long range enemy radar. From there, it follows a pre planned route and a satellite weapons datalink. Once it reaches a distance about 350 to 400km from the target, it dives to sea skimming level and disconnects its datalink. At this point, the missile's autonomous systems are switched on, which uses the missile's radar, sensors and relevant maps to calculate the best possible route, using parameters such as fastest transit speed, lowest chance of detection or known threats. This feature is most useful in littoral zones in which the nation is composed of, as the missile can weave around islands and small obstacles. Once it reaches the target zone, the missile begins to accelerate to its terminal speed of Mach 2. When the missile is eventually detected, it sends a message which notifies command that it is entering its attack. At this point in time, the missile engages its reaction control system and conducts erratic movements to disperse missile fire. As the missile closes in to a distance of 20km, three small rocket engines mounted near the rear of the missile fire and propel the missile to a speed of Mach 3. Combined with a nuclear or a large conventional payload, one of these missiles alone could bypass through even the most advanced missile defence systems and destroy even the largest carriers.

This one is a grab bag of different features that suffer from a lot of redudancy and thus waste:

• It is stealthy, it does not need a sophisticated jammer let alone chaff and flares.
• Accelerating to supersonic in the terminal stage will only make it more detectable. The reaction time for point defenses against low signature missiles is generally lower than against supersonic missiles, which are easily detected by IRSTs as soon as they cross the horizon. The reaction jets are not adding much either because assuming you are goign for a LRASM-like missile it will be a bank-to-turn, not skidding, missile and a ring of jets isn't going to do much to help it bank faster.
• With infrared and optical guidance channels there is not much need for sophisticated anti-jamming either. The inclusion of the optical channel is questionable in general because between night time and weather it will only be useful in a minority of engagements, even asbsent any hostile action, and it doesn't provide much information that an imaging infrared seeker doesn't already.
• While I assume you just didn't mention the INS, the lack of GPS is quite an oversight. Even if it is susceptible to jamming more often than not it is the simplest way to plan a mission for cruise missiles. It should definitely be available for when the ECM environment is permissive.

And in general there is excess emphasis on describing missile defense and missile armament in exacting detail, while undersea combat gets remarkably little mention.

[Martantaka]

My........My ship is to many that's make me a complete "illegal ship manufacturer"

Nevermind the grammar in the above sentence... what makes you think that battleships and 'superships' are a good idea?
Why do you have cruiser carriers and aircraft carriers, but not the obviously best type of carrier, a supercarrier?
Why do you have so many types of ship when you really might not need more than six or so classes of vessel?
Why do you have no fleet tenders?
Why in the name of the gods are you making a super submarine?
What in the fuck is a Battleship Carrier?
Do I even want to ask about the certain abomination that is a Megaship?

1.super ship used for big battles only
2.Cruiser carrier carry 2 cruisers,super carrier is a prototype.....But never go to battle
3.i dunno
4.i dunno
5.supersubs are in progress to
6.battleship carrier........Never seen war
Megaship is a prototype and seen war once......But then never again
But hey it's 2048 for me rn!

[Kassaran]

1.super ship used for big battles only
2.Cruiser carrier carry 2 cruisers,super carrier is a prototype.....But never go to battle
3.i dunno
4.i dunno
5.supersubs are in progress to
6.battleship carrier........Never seen war
Megaship is a prototype and seen war once......But then never again
But hey it's 2048 for me rn!

1. Why do you have 'super ships'?
2. W-what, why would you do that to yourself?
3. Do some reduction.
4. Unless you're adding these.
5. Why do you need supersubs?
6. Is this similar to your cruiser carrier in that it carries battleships?
Why would you ever make a supership, nevermind a megaship... this is a bad idea all around. No matter what year it is, ships aren't getting bigger unless they absolutely need to. Notice how nobody even uses battleships anymore? The current trending isn't the future is going to have battleships and weird dreadnaught-wannabes. It's going to be full of utilitarian escort cruiser/destroyers supporting Supercarriers and all the while being supported by an extensive submarine fleet designed to be as minimalistic and quiet as possible, to avoid being detected for longer periods of time. that is, unless I've learned wrong from everyone else in this thread...

[The Pacifican Islands]

Thanks for the feedback everyone! So the course of action is to:
- Remove modules
- Remove AEGIS
- Remove long range AAM
- Tweak other missiles
- Write in a neutral tone
- Write more about ASW

I've got another question. I'm envisioning this ship also operating in the dense litorrals in which my nation is composed of. Would a high dash speed be useful, and, would waterjets be more efficient?

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

35 knot speed is always useful.

[The Pacifican Islands]

Thanks for the feedback everyone! So the course of action is to:
- Remove modules
- Remove AEGIS
- Remove long range AAM
- Tweak other missiles
- Write in a neutral tone
- Write more about ASW

I've got another question. I'm envisioning this ship also operating in the dense litorrals in which my nation is composed of. Would a high dash speed be useful, and, would waterjets be more efficient?

https://www.nationstates.net/nation=the ... /id=888586
I've edited the factbook. Can you guys look over it again please? Thanks!

[The Akasha Colony]

Thanks for the feedback everyone! So the course of action is to:
- Remove modules
- Remove AEGIS
- Remove long range AAM
- Tweak other missiles
- Write in a neutral tone
- Write more about ASW

I've got another question. I'm envisioning this ship also operating in the dense litorrals in which my nation is composed of. Would a high dash speed be useful, and, would waterjets be more efficient?

https://www.nationstates.net/nation=the ... /id=888586
I've edited the factbook. Can you guys look over it again please? Thanks!

It's much cleaner now, and easier to read. But there are still a few awkwardly long paragraphs. I'm still not entirely sure most of the paragraph on the CRKV-7 is needed, given that its features are so similar to ESSM and it would be easier to just link someone to the article an ESSM instead, reserving the paragraph only to note the few places in which it differs. And this entire section is completely unnecessary:

The missile is said to be operational in temperatures as low as -120 degrees celsius and as high as 160 degrees celsius and in any known weather pattern. The solid rocket motor system of the missile incorporates an aramid-filled ethylene propylene diene monomer insulator, a blast tube nozzle, dual concentric hydroxyl-terminated polyether (HTPE) propellant, igniter, a solid-state laser initiation system and a limited thrust vector control system.

In fact, the entire paragraph could be shortened:

The PVLS is armed exclusively with CRKV-7 (Close Range Kill Vehicle) Sparrow missiles. The CRKV-7 is designed to provide short range defense against both sea-skimming and diving anti-ship missiles. The CRKV-7 is claimed by the Pacifican Navy to have a reliability rate of a over 99.9% and a 96% intercept rate, which reportedly allows it to be fired as a 'one shot, one kill' missile. The CRKV-7 has a maximum range of over 60 km and has the ability to be quad packed in a VLS cell, increasing the number of missiles carried to 32. The CRKV-7 uses a multi-mode X-band radar and electro-optical seeker, which provides a threefold reduction in illumination time. The missile also has a secondary anti-surface role, which allows it to combat small surface targets such as corvettes efficiently from 50 km away with an intercept time of 45 seconds in crowded littoral spaces. This mode also allows the CRKV-7 to reportedly destroy surfaced submarines. The CRKV-7 is commonly compared to the ESSM, Kinzhal and Umkhonto missile systems.

Which is fewer than five lines while still providing the important information a reader might be interested in. It could probably be shortened even further with a more comprehensive rewrite. Most of the information removed was either unnecessary (does a reader need to know the operational temperature range or the rocket motor's chemistry?) or repetitive (a missile that can intercept maneuvering targets is presumably also capable of defeating simpler things like precision glide bombs and diving missiles, this doesn't really need to be spelled out separately). If you want to go really in depth into the missile's workings, a separate entry is advisable.

Is "SHIELD" intentionally misspelled? It's also nitpicky but "Aegis" is not an acronym and isn't capitalized.

How large is the hangar? V-22 is a pretty huge aircraft, it's not impossible for a smaller combatant to carry it but it's not a normal feature. Even the large San Antonio-class can only fit a single V-22 in its hangar.

There's a part of me that really dislikes including the Rick Astley anecdote. This is a writing issue more than a technical one, although indiscriminately blasting the airwaves with a particular song is not a very effective jamming method against modern military communications anyway (and instead a very good way to get targeted and destroyed).

[The Pacifican Islands]

It's much cleaner now, and easier to read. But there are still a few awkwardly long paragraphs. I'm still not entirely sure most of the paragraph on the CRKV-7 is needed, given that its features are so similar to ESSM and it would be easier to just link someone to the article an ESSM instead, reserving the paragraph only to note the few places in which it differs. And this entire section is completely unnecessary:

The missile is said to be operational in temperatures as low as -120 degrees celsius and as high as 160 degrees celsius and in any known weather pattern. The solid rocket motor system of the missile incorporates an aramid-filled ethylene propylene diene monomer insulator, a blast tube nozzle, dual concentric hydroxyl-terminated polyether (HTPE) propellant, igniter, a solid-state laser initiation system and a limited thrust vector control system.

In fact, the entire paragraph could be shortened:

The PVLS is armed exclusively with CRKV-7 (Close Range Kill Vehicle) Sparrow missiles. The CRKV-7 is designed to provide short range defense against both sea-skimming and diving anti-ship missiles. The CRKV-7 is claimed by the Pacifican Navy to have a reliability rate of a over 99.9% and a 96% intercept rate, which reportedly allows it to be fired as a 'one shot, one kill' missile. The CRKV-7 has a maximum range of over 60 km and has the ability to be quad packed in a VLS cell, increasing the number of missiles carried to 32. The CRKV-7 uses a multi-mode X-band radar and electro-optical seeker, which provides a threefold reduction in illumination time. The missile also has a secondary anti-surface role, which allows it to combat small surface targets such as corvettes efficiently from 50 km away with an intercept time of 45 seconds in crowded littoral spaces. This mode also allows the CRKV-7 to reportedly destroy surfaced submarines. The CRKV-7 is commonly compared to the ESSM, Kinzhal and Umkhonto missile systems.

Which is fewer than five lines while still providing the important information a reader might be interested in. It could probably be shortened even further with a more comprehensive rewrite. Most of the information removed was either unnecessary (does a reader need to know the operational temperature range or the rocket motor's chemistry?) or repetitive (a missile that can intercept maneuvering targets is presumably also capable of defeating simpler things like precision glide bombs and diving missiles, this doesn't really need to be spelled out separately). If you want to go really in depth into the missile's workings, a separate entry is advisable.

Thanks! If it's okay, I've taken your shortened description for the factbook.

Is "SHIELD" intentionally misspelled? It's also nitpicky but "Aegis" is not an acronym and isn't capitalized.

No. It's probably my phone acting stupid.

How large is the hangar? V-22 is a pretty huge aircraft, it's not impossible for a smaller combatant to carry it but it's not a normal feature. Even the large San Antonio-class can only fit a single V-22 in its hangar.

I've clarified it, I meant on the deck of the ship, not inside the hangar.

There's a part of me that really dislikes including the Rick Astley anecdote. This is a writing issue more than a technical one, although indiscriminately blasting the airwaves with a particular song is not a very effective jamming method against modern military communications anyway (and instead a very good way to get targeted and destroyed).

God, I actually put that in there?! I couldn't fall asleep that night and I had no idea what I added/taken out. Thanks for catching that!

Updated, as well.
https://www.nationstates.net/nation=the ... /id=888586

EDIT: Some more questions.
Again, I envision this ship needing to go really fast. Would waterjets be a good idea?

I'm thinking of replacing the 76mm with a 127mm cannon. I think it'd give the ship a better way to bombard shores in litorral operations. Would that make sense?

[The Akasha Colony]

Again, I envision this ship needing to go really fast. Would waterjets be a good idea?

Yes.

I'm thinking of replacing the 76mm with a 127mm cannon. I think it'd give the ship a better way to bombard shores in litorral operations. Would that make sense?

Unless you're really desperate to bombard very far inland, a 76 mm gun is fine. It is a better multi-role gun system than the 127 mm.

[The Pacifican Islands]

I made this and I don't know what I feel about it.

EDIT: As in, it looks really awkward and I'm not sure if this hullform and propulsion system would work for such a craft

[United Vallerian Republic]

If anyone in particular is interested, I have created an NS design Discord. Feel free to join! https://discord.gg/4hgNm66

[Martantaka]

1.super ship used for big battles only
2.Cruiser carrier carry 2 cruisers,super carrier is a prototype.....But never go to battle
3.i dunno
4.i dunno
5.supersubs are in progress to
6.battleship carrier........Never seen war
Megaship is a prototype and seen war once......But then never again
But hey it's 2048 for me rn!

1. Why do you have 'super ships'?
2. W-what, why would you do that to yourself?
3. Do some reduction.
4. Unless you're adding these.
5. Why do you need supersubs?
6. Is this similar to your cruiser carrier in that it carries battleships?
Why would you ever make a supership, nevermind a megaship... this is a bad idea all around. No matter what year it is, ships aren't getting bigger unless they absolutely need to. Notice how nobody even uses battleships anymore? The current trending isn't the future is going to have battleships and weird dreadnaught-wannabes. It's going to be full of utilitarian escort cruiser/destroyers supporting Supercarriers and all the while being supported by an extensive submarine fleet designed to be as minimalistic and quiet as possible, to avoid being detected for longer periods of time. that is, unless I've learned wrong from everyone else in this thread...

1.I tell ya.....It's prototype
2.Thats way being me
3.sure
4.what "these"?
5.Same.......Prototype
6.Well supership is a ship that use on federation war,2,3 and 4,after that it just in display on museum
Escorts?Cruisers?Destroyers?Support supercarrier tier?Now I get it Hmmm maybe you right about supersubs,I shall stopped the project now

Note:supership IS a prot and seen war,it only for test on the frontlines

[The Pacifican Islands]

Hi all!

Does it make sense to fit heavyweight torpedoes onto a frigate as an additional anti ship weapon or as a more effective anti submarine weapon? I'm guessing that it would be effective because many torpedoes can travel over 50km and at high speeds.

[Laritaia]

Hi all!

Does it make sense to fit heavyweight torpedoes onto a frigate as an additional anti ship weapon or as a more effective anti submarine weapon? I'm guessing that it would be effective because many torpedoes can travel over 50km and at high speeds.

not really

i mean you can do it, it's just going to be so situational as to make it borderline worthless.

[North Arkana]

Hi all!

Does it make sense to fit heavyweight torpedoes onto a frigate as an additional anti ship weapon or as a more effective anti submarine weapon? I'm guessing that it would be effective because many torpedoes can travel over 50km and at high speeds.

Be more worthwhile to use a VLS capable missile which can carry that torpedo to just outside interception range by enemy assets and drop it in the water. Those 50km ranges are for low speed travel anyway. Being able to drop it out of something like a sea-skimmer or something means you can have those heavyweight torps actually sprinting in at their top speed, with your ship a much safer distance away.

[The Akasha Colony]

Hi all!

Does it make sense to fit heavyweight torpedoes onto a frigate as an additional anti ship weapon or as a more effective anti submarine weapon? I'm guessing that it would be effective because many torpedoes can travel over 50km and at high speeds.

It's obviously not impossible.

There's just no real point because 99.99% of the time there will be no benefit. Torpedoes on a surface ship are self-defense weapons, they don't need range. They aren't an offensive armament. They're meant to quickly return fire on a submarine that may have wandered a bit too close. Lightweight torpedoes can already match the speed of heavyweight torpedoes, the only major difference is range. And the extra range isn't a big deal because detecting a submarine that far away is an often dubious proposition in the first place.

If you need range beyond what a normal lightweight torpedo provides, the better option is to use a solution like VL-ASROC or Sea Lance to throw that torpedo to a greater distance more quickly via rocket motor. Or to simply deploy it from a helicopter.

[The Pacifican Islands]

Thanks! Does it help at all for the missile that Arkana mentioned to use a supercavitating torpedo? Or to use a supercavitating torpedo at all?

[Laritaia]

Thanks! Does it help at all for the missile that Arkana mentioned to use a supercavitating torpedo? Or to use a supercavitating torpedo at all?

efforts toward making guided supercavitating torpedoes have been less then promising

[The Akasha Colony]

Thanks! Does it help at all for the missile that Arkana mentioned to use a supercavitating torpedo? Or to use a supercavitating torpedo at all?

No. The problem with supercavitating torpedoes is figuring out how to guide them given the extreme amount of noise generated by water flow and the rocket motor, which tends to deafen the onboard sonar. A conventional light torpedo with a good guidance system is superior.