Your Nation's Warships, Batch 3

[Ormata]

-snip-

O, a hero if I've ever seen one.

Will most definitely put some of these measures into the works and will be back to bounce more ideas off of the walls here.

Thank you!

[Scurvy Sea]

[New Vihenia]

For any aspiring torpedo maker out there. here i would like to present :

Underwater Missile Propulsion (1967)

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1W0C2W ... WUA6hWXI5q

[United Earthlings]

Not at all. The Iowas provided useful and urgently-needed strike capability at a reasonable cost, and the Kuznetsov was the logical conclusion of Gorshkov's naval strategy. Reactivating the Iowas now would be silly, though.

An argument could easily be made that the retrofitted Iowa’s provided no more useful capability than what was already being filled by other vessels in service or soon to enter service at the time at half the costs in some cases. Even had the Cold War continued another decade and factoring in any ahistorical outcomes around the First Gulf War and how the 1992 elections would have been effected, considering one of the reasons the Iowa’s were even brought back into service was to fulfill and meet Reagan’s 600 Ship plan. Even with the various ahistorical outcomes post 1988, you probably still would have seen the Iowa’s again decommissioned around the same period they were historically. Reactivating the Iowa’s back then was probably just as silly then as it would be today. The youngest of the Iowa class was already 43 years old at the time of its reactivation and upgrade and clearly Battleships were way past their heyday.

Kuznetsov being the logical conclusion of Gorshkov's naval strategy is not the full story as the Soviet Naval Officers community had been having on again off again debates about Aircraft Carriers going all the way back to the 1930s. Kuznetsov himself supported Aircraft Carriers as a balanced fleet when the political winds permitted it.

I actually read the Province & State class write-up, and besides the jarring interchangeable use of round, square, and curly brackets, it's just a silly NS-meme ship. "Acicular ferrite & Microalloy High-strength low-alloy (HSLA) steels," for example, is just three different buzzwordy ways of saying the same thing.

Least someone read it, while calling it just a silly NS-meme ship I would consider an unfair categorization, I did design it for the NSverse world specifically as what’s happening in the NS world and what’s happening in the RL world are not equal or even parallel.

You choose a really bad example to exhibit the use of just different buzzwords saying the same thing. I actually spent a good amount of time researching what actual modern naval vessels are constructed from and the processes to produce the steels. That’s what Real World vessels hulls use and how it’s describe in the literature, so if you have a problem with how it’s describe your shit out of luck there.

But a NS-meme ship isn't just buzzwords. It's a ship-shaped box with bullshit crammed in with no regards for the more subtle constraints of shipbuilding. 320 VLS cells worth of holes in the strength deck of a ship with 6" belt armor and flight deck armor, for example. Three 6" guns for some reason, a super radar, etc, etc.

It’s my nation’s response to the arsenal ship concept and how it evolved, a large modern Western Destroyer already has 128 VLS cells worth of holes and this is a much larger vessel so larger hull, more space. And for the record, I didn't just cram things in with no regards for the constraints of space and weight. Yes, I’m aware a modern ship having armor is weird, but I’ve let the Commonwealth embrace some weirdness and one of the ways was that armored ships continued to be built throughout the 20th century. A Large DDG with two guns is fine, but three guns make’s you have an anal heart attack, OK. I hate to think what would of happen to you if I have decided to leave the design at 6 guns before I decided that was to many and completely unnecessary. If my nation’s answer to creating something similar to a Dual Band Radar system is a super radar, so be it.

The propulsion setup doesn't really reveal the deep thinking you mentioned. There's no such thing as an 80,000 shp reactor. Output is probably in the range of 250-300 MWt, which would be fairly sizable. A full Long Beach plant! This would have a major impact on ship design, and the chances of the two classes being identical in displacement, dimensions, general layout, and crew complement is infinitesimal.

Not directed at you: Swears Profusely. A few minutes later, OK, now that’s out of the way.

The 80,000 shp in the E1 study section was a typo, which I’ve now fixed. It’s a 60,000 shp reactor, because as I said earlier my thinking was designing a Common Core reactor that could power my navy’s future SSBN, SSGNs and these Aviation Cruisers. Adjust your response accordingly.

Dimensions would probably stay the same as most of that space is taken up by the VLS systems and the Hangers. I’ve accepted that the conventional powered version will be somewhat less efficient in its use of the available hull space. I can account for the different displacements between the two designs I just decided to keep it simple. Can’t show internal general layout, but I did consider how it would look and function between the two designs, I’m well aware the internal arrangements especially around the propulsion system would be different. If it’s a deal breaker, reflecting different crew sizes between the two designs I can do, again as I said I tried to where possible keep things simplified.

Note that all military nuclear surface ships have had multiple reactors. This actually simplifies the design due to center of gravity considerations. With a super radar with a 75 km surface search range and a 10-helo hangar covered in several inches of armor, you need all the help lowering CoG you can get.

One of the reasons these vessels have such a large beam at the waterline, correct me if I’m wrong between a large beam, a below the water line centrally mounted medium sized reactor and properly positioned fuel tanks to act as ballasts tanks should permit a stable CoG. Furthermore, the armor isn’t that heavy, weight wise as a percentage of vessels displacement the reactor and sensors systems are going to have a higher weight rating.

Even assuming CONAG (which is obviously what I was talking about with "combined power") results in a savings in cost and complexity despite every serious design study showing otherwise, it raises an interesting question. Why? It's somewhat unclear if the ship is meant to operate closely with fast carriers (complementing them and providing enhanced ASW) or as part of some kind of independent ASW surface group. If it operates with carriers, then the dash speed of CONAG is somewhat justified but it offers nothing that couldn't be done better by the carrier or its escorts.

I don’t recall stating that a CONAG would result in a sufficient saving in cost or complexity. I believe a CONAG with one reactor would be slightly cheaper to build, maintain and operate than a pure nuclear powered vessel with two reactors. This is also why I built more of the conventionally powered versions than of the CONAG variety. Furthermore, considering I believe a debate within my naval community about choosing the CONAG would have been long, intensive, extensive and thorough I say present your best case to the naval review board on why not selecting a CONAG system is the way to precede over your preferred propulsion method.

As to why, meeting large electrical requirements for all the power requirements modern weapons take and two, to enable the vessels to cruise at 15 to 20 knots for long periods of time without the need to constantly refill was my main rational for selecting a CONAG system.

While, they could operate with the Nuclear Carrier Strike groups when combined into a task force, generally they would operate as independent surface groups either tasked with ASW or ASUW. They would also carry some AAW ability with them, how much would probably depend on the mission requirements and likely enemy forces expected to be encounter.

If it operates as centerpiece of its own group, a dash speed of 30 knots or more is unnecessary. A top speed of 26-28 knots (about what you'd get with 80,000 hp) would be more sensible, and a pure nuclear plant would be beneficial to an aviation ship in more ways than fuel savings - eliminating ducts for more internal space and reducing updrafts. In any case there's no sense in optimizing the hull for 20 knots in a nuclear ship. It should be optimized for high speed, especially in a CONAG ship, since that's when you're actually using fuel!

Generally, operates as a centerpiece of its own surface group as well as being the Group Flag Command Vessel, A high dash speed is redundant since the nuclear reactor is there to supply power to maintain long range endurance at cruise speeds which is what the rest of the surface groups vessels are sailing at the majority of the time. Hence why the vessels in question aren’t a pure nuclear ship, the CONAG version also has two very powerful gas turbines for when temporary high dash needs are required and also to act as a redundant propulsion system in case in the unlikely event some unforeseen issue develops with the single reactor that the vessels would still be able to maintain a cruise speed of around 20 knots to get themselves home.

doesn't really say anything about your no-doubt incredibly sophisticated doctrine. It's just a wordy way of saying it's a helicopter carrier with too many missiles.

All in all it just seems like slapping a bunch of extraneous crap that most likely wouldn't fit in a hull of that displacement and giving it a shallow doctrinal justification when it doesn't really seem well-suited for anything.

That’s shouldn’t be surprising since the write-up I did only addresses the vessels specific design role in my nation’s naval doctrine, not the whole of what would be a incredibly sophisticated doctrine which I’m still working on.

It’s a helicopter carrier with many missiles. That’s what I {my Navy} wanted…The best RL analogy would be the Soviet’s Kiev Class minus the angled flight deck.

From wiki “The intended mission of the Kiev class was support for strategic missile submarines, other surface ships and naval aviation; it was capable of engaging in anti-aircraft, anti-submarine, and surface warfare.” Seems like it to me that my P and S Class Aviation Cruisers are well suited to perform those operations the same as the Kiev class was unless you wish to make the argument that the Kiev class was not well suited for anything described above.

Everything fits in the dimensions stated, I did the math. Is it 100% perfectly accurate, no since that’s beyond my expertise and would require an extensive expensive computer program to calculate down to the decimal point, that I don’t have. You know like the ones RL engineering firms use to design modern naval vessels. But, as this is merely a free-form RP for fun, a 95 to 98% accuracy rating I don’t think is all that bad.

A Carrier is already by definition a putting your eggs in one basket, that’s the whole point. Furthermore, were merely adhering to how we interpret the principles of war and one key principle is concentration of mass at the decisive point. Wasn’t hard arithmetic to figure out, 2 Carriers can concentration more mass than 1.

This nicely sums up the flawed reasoning that leads to the 400-cell VLS NS supership.

Thanks, I wanted more than 320 VLS cells, but there wasn’t enough space, sadly enough, given I wanted to stay within a certain displacement range for my not NS supership.

Also, the Aviation Cruisers replaced three different classes of vessels, so combining three into one tends to do that. The Three vessels combined with one from each class had close to 320 VLS cells, so I figured one single vessel would be cheaper to operate than three.

[United Earthlings]

It's neither false nor hubris; it's an account of historical events. The 8 ships of Light Carrier Group Lalath have more than once gone into battle (in RPs) against much larger enemy forces that initially expected an easy win. The fact that it's happened multiple times carries the obvious implication that that didn't happen.

The Royal Commonwealth Navy would have gone into the engagement fully expecting it not to be an easy victory especially against an unknown adversary. The Commonwealth probably wouldn’t be all that impressed given you keep getting dealt lucky hands, irrelevant of how many times it happen. The Commonwealth probably would have said something asinine like Chance is a fickle bitch.

Me, personally, I’m impressed considering how often RPs just abruptly end. If you still have the links to the RP, I’d love to read them.

How do you know I'm NOT Norman Friedman, hmm?

Deduction my Dear Watson, eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.

They aren't proper aircraft carriers because their primary purpose is the landing and support of Marine units on hostile shores. The primary purpose of an aircraft carrier is, well, pretty much everything BUT that.

And yet, that’s exactly what the US Fleet Carriers did in support of Operation Enduring Freedom, provided CAS to ground forces as well as the insertion of Special Forces onto hostile shores. That’s just one historical example. Who knew US Fleet Carriers weren’t proper aircraft carriers.

Said it before, will say it again, the term proper is vague and meaningless. LHDs and LPHs can perform other roles besides the landing and support of Marine units, like all Carriers they can be utilized to perform a variety of operations beyond their primary purpose.

I mean, of course it sounds like Aegis (and it is spelled Aegis, not AEGIS. The name is not an acronym; it refers to what is usually interpreted as the shield of Zeus and Athena in Greek mythology).

I mean, of course it sounds like Aegis (and it is spelled Aegis, not AEGIS. The name is not an acronym; it refers to what is usually interpreted as the shield of Zeus and Athena in Greek mythology). A final note on the topic: as I mentioned above, the name is actually spelled Aegis, not AEGIS, though this is a pretty common misconception.

I believe this is one area that falls under the grammar rules known as semantics.

Official US Navy Fact File, all CAPS.

Lockheed Martin Product Page, only the A capitalized.

One of these things is not like the other.

Well, if you're going to throw apples at my tomatoes then I don't really have a choice, do I?

Better analogy would be your Carrier Groups are the Apples and my Surface Warfare group is the tomato. Hence, I’m Not throwing tomatoes at your apples, they blundered into each other unexpectedly and my tomatoes are attempting to disengage by getting the fuck out of dodge. Now the question becomes are you stupid enough to chase the retreating SWG.

I wasn't actually comparing anything. I was pointing out why your claim that

long range anti-ship missiles . . . can be guided and redirected by the AEW helicopters carried on board.

is not true.

Why isn’t it true with two-way data links? Sure the AEW helicopters have less radar detection range than the Hawkeye, but still should have enough range to give a general target location to be feed into the network to vector the long-range anti-ship missiles.

A balanced navy being a good navy isn't a design choice. It's more of a truism, albeit one that isn't necessarily true.

Why do you say this isn’t necessarily true?

One missile isn't going to sink a fleet. There's a good chance it won't even sink a ship, thanks to the existence of things like damage control.

Naval intelligence should have at least some idea where a hostile fleet is going to be, based off when they leave port and where the combat area is.

Depends on the size of the missile, what type of vessel gets hit, where the shit is struck and how good the specific crew is on damage control. The Falkland War really showed the chaos a modern naval war could be.

The Ocean is a vast endless place with even modern naval intelligence only able to do so much. It’s entirely possible to lose track of an entire hostile fleet once it enters the open ocean.

And using your unusually logic, your Hawkeye(s) would be slashed by long range SAMs long before they were close enough to spot any enemy fighters or naval vessels.

Considering said Hawkeyes would be patrolling at most 100 nmi from my carrier to provide early warning of attacking enemy fighters and missiles, such fighters should be well beyond the range of enemy SAMs when they're spotted by AEW.

An E-2 that somehow manages to find enemy surface ships should be shrieking like a little girl and running away as fast as it can while jamming everything in sight and screaming for the CAP. All in a very serious and professional manner of course.

The Commonwealth has some really long range SAMs, the AEW helicopters would be working in tandem with a forward positioned picket DDG or FFG with its Radar in active scan mode for threats. So depending on who detected who first, it’s not an impossibility that your Hawkeye might find it’s RWR shrieking like a little girl that an inbound missile or probably two is on its way to give you a proper greeting.

Encountering one of my own Carrier Strike Groups with your Hawkeye is probably going to be a bad blood bath for both sides given our forces would be evenly matched. You jam me, I jam you, you call in CAPs, mine responded in kind, our forces converge, missiles of all types start going left, right, center, up, down at that point it would be a battle of luck and who can tolerate the attritional rates the best.

I’d like to say that the Commonwealth would eventually emerge victorious, but given its study of naval history, planning would dictate that it be prepared for major setbacks.

Still no single battle ever decided the outcome of a major war. You can lose lots of battles and still win the war.

Technically, it's a thousand nautical miles. I just didn't see the need to be that pedantic initially.

1,500 km = 932 mi = 810 nmi < 1000 nmi

The Commonwealth is clearly quite special. I don't think I'm underestimating anything.

Feel free to let your pedantic fly as much as you want with me. You are never going to please a perfectionist.

So, what you’re telling me is for the Commonwealth to be special again it needs a 2,500 Km missile? Because we can do that. We have the resources. We have the technology. We can make him better than he was. Better...stronger...faster."

Well hello there, Mahan. What are you doing in the 21st century?

Continuing his influence on the natural world. And Hi, how are you today on this lovely day?

But seriously, Mahanian doctrine was outdated by WWII (and probably before), and the Japanese adherence to its theory of a decisive battle is often considered a contributing factor to their loss of the Pacific War.

Japan knew they were a weaker power, hence the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor I.E. the decisive battle, which contributed to leading them to a string of victories in the first six months of war. Japan had no way of winning a long drawn-out prolonged war and its pre-war doctrine reflected this realization. No doctrine could have saved Japan from the vengeance of might that was the United States. By 1944, Japanese naval doctrine is best described as a defensive war of desperation.

A great and highly recommended book on the Subject.

That statement about Mahan doctrine is wrong on so many levels, I just can’t...

So your argument is that because the basket is already pretty full, we should cram even more eggs into it? You know what, I just did some arithmetic of my own, and I discovered something interesting: it turns out that 3 carriers can concentrate more mass than 2! Clearly you need to add another carrier to your carrier groups. Actually, you know what's greater than 3? FOUR! FOUR carriers in each group! No, wait: FIVE!

Alright, I think we need to take a step back here and reevaluate this situation. This whole business of just adding one carrier after another is getting us nowhere fast. Why don't we cut out all these superfluous middle steps and just skip straight to the end: it's obvious that the most efficient way to fight a naval war is to smush every single ship in your navy into one giant fleet ball and just chuck it at your enemy wholesale!

Feel better now? OK, good, now that you’ve stepped off your soap box and calmed down, here’s the evidence.

Who Knew Massing two Carriers into a single operational group isn’t such a radical world ending idea.

lol. I'll send you an RHIB. Your Coast Guard can use it for target practice.

And now for that slight, your nation at war’s end will have the honor of signing their unconditional surrender on board the Coast Guard vessel that captured your last naval vessel. The Commonwealth also thanks you for the RHIB, you made it easier to sneak Commonwealth personnel onto one of your naval vessels to capture it.

Slight the Royal Commonwealth Coast Guard again and a Coast Guard is all that will be left and permitted to exist of the once mighty Mitheldalond Navy at the successful conclusion of the war.

Sounds a lot like coastal patrol missions, doesn't it? Not so much like long-range ocean-going patrols or fleet support.

The smaller ocean going SSKs are primary assigned coastal patrol missions, while the larger ocean going SSKs operate patrol missions within a boundary of the Commonwealth’s EEZ. The Larger V class SSKs also perform guerre de course among other classified missions. Not to worry though if a small fleet of yours crosses path with one of our V Class SSKs, it has the same combat power potential as an SSN, so you needn’t worry about your vessels escaping without having gotten torpedoed and sunk. The Commonwealth is but a kindly soul and only too happy to send as many of your vessels to visit Davy Jones Locker, where he will warmly embrace them as family.

Then fix them; problem solved!

They've always been inferior aviation cruisers. The point I was making was that you're trying to build a light carrier group, but without an actual carrier, which isn't a great idea.

I think this is one area where I’m going to have the Commonwealth place ear plugs in while shouting FIXED! FIXED! FIXED! Really loudly and repeatedly.

There Helicopter Carriers, but with lots of missiles, so they're the perfect idea, so .

or wisely. Nowhere in the rest of this paragraph did you actually address any of the problems with a combined nuclear plant I pointed out, nor did you give any examples of an actual advantage CONAG would have over a purely conventional power plant (the obvious one being infinite low speed cruise range) or over a purely nuclear plant (can't think of any).

I wasn't assuming you were using a carrier reactor. I assumed you were using a reactor specifically designed for your cruisers. It doesn't make a difference; it will have the same problems either way: higher initial costs, higher life cycle costs, and lots of specialized extra crew members (like nuclear engineers). Reactor technicians don't just have to know how a reactor works. They have to be qualified/certified on this one specific reactor on this one specific ship. Or I guess you could go the Soviet route and have a reactor meltdown every other Thursday.

I thought the advantage(s) would be obvious, the same as any other nuclear propelled vessel. Near infinite low speed cruise range is one of the main reasons I had my nation select a CONAG set-up even with the higher initial and life cycle costs, but the disadvantages is also why there isn’t a single class, but two sub-classes. The majority of the two sub-classes built are that of the conventional variant.

No, I’m not going the Soviet route, the nuclear engineering crew will be qualified, certified and trained.

I find it quite funny that you're trying to build a turn-fighter out of an F-18, probably the worst dogfighter in the US arsenal. Though to be fair, saying that something isn't quite as good a dogfighter as the F-15, F-16, or F-22 isn't really much of an insult; most aircraft fall into that category.

Over mach 1.8/2 conveys just as much an advantage over slower aircraft as it always has, and there are arguably fewer aircraft capable of these speeds today than there were in the 70s/80s.

Not so much turn into a pure dogfighter, but merely give the aircraft ever extra advantage that helps in a turning fight.

I designed a single engine stealth naval dogfighter, but I decided to withdraw it from naval service a few years ago.

My Navy’s been going back and forth on whether to procure a 5th gen twin-engine naval fighter for the past decade.

Darn right you didn't.

And who said anything about a smart phone?

(Image)

Uh huh, you should know your speaking to probably one of the few Millennials that actually know what that phone is without having to look it up first, in fact I’ve even used one, enough times to tell you the best tool to use to “dial” a number. Hint, it’s not your fingers.

I can still remember the sound they make as you “dialed” the number you wanted to call, it was epic.

Harpoon is... old. It really should have been replaced a long time ago, but the main striking power of a US carrier group is the air wing on the carrier itself, which can out-range pretty much any anti-ship missile. The cruisers and destroyers are mainly there for air (and submarine) defense, so the US wasn't really too concerned about their anti-ship firepower (the latest Burkes don't even carry Harpoons). If you intend for this ship to actually operate independently in an actual conflict (not just anti-pirate patrols and similar), then you might want to look into either the AGM-158C LRASM or various Russian anti-ship missiles like the P-700, P-800, or BrahMos. The Naval Strike Missile is another option is you want to keep the Harpoon-style box launchers, but it does have a pretty small warhead. On the other hand, it's light enough to be carried by a helicopter, and a bit smaller than a Harpoon (and comes in both quadruple and sextuple box launchers), so you could probably carry more of them if you wanted to.

You left out the RBS-15 for one which has found a nice little niche market to cater to.

[Ormata]

Well, decided to edit a lotta stuff based on recommendations. Overall tactical picture, for those who I know will ask, is a nation overall surrounded by enemies who expects to fight a war against enemies with superior numbers. As such, warship survivability, quality, and multi-mission ability are currently in my mind as paramount.

In regards to the Harpoon thing, decided to either employ AWS (Affordable Weapons System) in 20 missile box launchers or VLS capable missiles, eliminating the need for another launcher.

Overall added a good deal more vessels, including another class of destroyer intended to be purposefully limited (To give me something to replace in the future) as well as several listings for vessels I plan to designate and describe.

Again, information seen here.

[Triplebaconation]

I mean, of course it sounds like Aegis (and it is spelled Aegis, not AEGIS. The name is not an acronym; it refers to what is usually interpreted as the shield of Zeus and Athena in Greek mythology).I mean, of course it sounds like Aegis (and it is spelled Aegis, not AEGIS. The name is not an acronym; it refers to what is usually interpreted as the shield of Zeus and Athena in Greek mythology). A final note on the topic: as I mentioned above, the name is actually spelled Aegis, not AEGIS, though this is a pretty common misconception.

I believe this is one area that falls under the grammar rules known as semantics.

It actually falls under the grammar rules known as capitalization. The Navy routinely ignores them in "fact files," possibly to evoke the feel of old teletypes.

You choose a really bad example to exhibit the use of just different buzzwords saying the same thing.

All HLSA steels are microalloyed. The classifications on wiki are misleading. These aren't separate types of steel, but properties a particular alloy may have. A particular grade of steel may have several of these properties. Yeah, they kind of say the same thing, since "microalloy" and "HLSA" don't really add any information to "acicular ferrite." Nobody cares about the microstructure of your steel anyway, so HLSA is sufficient. Acicular ferrite and microalloy are just there to sound impressive.

A Large DDG with two guns is fine, but three guns make’s you have an anal heart attack, OK. I hate to think what would of happen to you if I have decided to leave the design at 6 guns before I decided that was to many and completely unnecessary.

Two guns provide an actual increase in capability over one. Three in a triangular layout doesn't increase capability much if at all over two, and placing two guns off the centerline effectively multiplies their weight in regards to stability.

The 80,000 shp in the E1 study section was a typo, which I’ve now fixed. It’s a 60,000 shp reactor, because as I said earlier my thinking was designing a Common Core reactor that could power my navy’s future SSBN, SSGNs and these Aviation Cruisers. Adjust your response accordingly.

Reactors output heat, not "shaft horsepower," which is power delivered to the shaft. The associated steam turbines in an IEP setup wouldn't even have their output measured in shp.

Generally, operates as a centerpiece of its own surface group as well as being the Group Flag Command Vessel, A high dash speed is redundant since the nuclear reactor is there to supply power to maintain long range endurance at cruise speeds which is what the rest of the surface groups vessels are sailing at the majority of the time. Hence why the vessels in question aren’t a pure nuclear ship, the CONAG version also has two very powerful gas turbines for when temporary high dash needs are required and also to act as a redundant propulsion system in case in the unlikely event some unforeseen issue develops with the single reactor that the vessels would still be able to maintain a cruise speed of around 20 knots to get themselves home.

Are these other ships CONAG as well? The cost of nuclear propulsion doesn't scale directly with the number of reactors or horsepower. You're paying a large premium for a nuclear ship, then saving a few percent of that for the effective benefit of a slight decrease in the amount of replenishment these surface groups require. It really doesn't make much sense.

You'd be far better off using these reactors to power nuclear carrier escorts than ASW helicopter carriers.

One of the reasons these vessels have such a large beam at the waterline, correct me if I’m wrong between a large beam, a below the water line centrally mounted medium sized reactor and properly positioned fuel tanks to act as ballasts tanks should permit a stable CoG. Furthermore, the armor isn’t that heavy, weight wise as a percentage of vessels displacement the reactor and sensors systems are going to have a higher weight rating.

The side effect of that broad beam and the dimensions and displacement listed is an incredibly fine hull, raising the center of gravity even more. Very low block and prismatic coefficients aren't desirable - you have to have enough displacement to support the hull. 5" of deck armor will be quite heavy indeed, and have much more of an impact on the ship than belt armor. As written the P&S class will have awful seakeeping characteristics.

From wiki “The intended mission of the Kiev class was support for strategic missile submarines, other surface ships and naval aviation; it was capable of engaging in anti-aircraft, anti-submarine, and surface warfare.” Seems like it to me that my P and S Class Aviation Cruisers are well suited to perform those operations the same as the Kiev class was unless you wish to make the argument that the Kiev class was not well suited for anything described above.

Again, this isn't doctrine.

Everything fits in the dimensions stated, I did the math.

This is precisely my point. Everything fits without regards to how ships actually move and float.

Furthermore, considering I believe a debate within my naval community about choosing the CONAG would have been long, intensive, extensive and thorough I say present your best case to the naval review board on why not selecting a CONAG system is the way to precede over your preferred propulsion method.

Looking at the writeup, your naval community has a very bizarre design process, so I doubt I'd get very far.

This nicely sums up the flawed reasoning that leads to the 400-cell VLS NS supership.

Thanks, I wanted more than 320 VLS cells, but there wasn’t enough space, sadly enough, given I wanted to stay within a certain displacement range for my not NS supership.

It will be interesting to see how your incredibly sophisticated doctrine develops, although I suspect you're thinking more of how impressive something is on an NS storefront than the implications of aircraft and very long-range antiship missiles and how they affect "concentration of mass."

[Triplebaconation]

By the way, you don't need a fancy computer to estimate this stuff, just some basic knowledge of the forces acting on ships.

The Province & State class has a very fine hull. Since it's a helicopter carrier, presumably the hull is full aft and very very fine forward. There won't be enough buoyancy at the bow. It'll plow into the waves, lifting the aft higher. The whole thing will pitch and roll unpredictably.

The massive deck armor will exacerbate these issues, and the armor as a whole will amplify the stress on the hull. That's when the 320 VLS tubes start to matter.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

The next day our Weapons Department head CDR Foreman showed me aerial recon photos. The radar antennas were scattered all over Southeast Asia, and what remained of the trailer was lying on its side at the edge of a 30 foot diameter crater.

Oof
And just like that I've been convinced that Talos is the way of the futur of 1960 instead of big gun battleboats. <.>

[United Earthlings]

It actually falls under the grammar rules known as capitalization. The Navy routinely ignores them in "fact files," possibly to evoke the feel of old teletypes.

I thought the same thing at first, hence why I went and checked first this English Grammar Book I saved from my college days. It’s not covered under the Capitalization rules.

I had the same thought about the Navy Fact File being an odd one off, so I went thru my quite extensive collection of naval books where Aegis {AEGIS} would get a mention. I again found examples of it used both ways, leading me to conclude it’s not a rule, but determined more by ones personal preferences, I.E. it’s merely semantics.

All HLSA steels are microalloyed. The classifications on wiki are misleading. These aren't separate types of steel, but properties a particular alloy may have. A particular grade of steel may have several of these properties. Yeah, they kind of say the same thing, since "microalloy" and "HLSA" don't really add any information to "acicular ferrite." Nobody cares about the microstructure of your steel anyway, so HLSA is sufficient. Acicular ferrite and microalloy are just there to sound impressive.

Wikipedia is a good source, but I never use it as my main or only source when researching my designs.

That’s what I found in my research, so if it’s just there to sound impressive, then I guess it just sounds impressive, which looking at it objectivity it kind of does sound impressive.

Marketing 101

Two guns provide an actual increase in capability over one. Three in a triangular layout doesn't increase capability much if at all over two, and placing two guns off the centerline effectively multiplies their weight in regards to stability.

The gun layout is more for fire angles than capability as it is historically with secondary batteries. I was well aware of the fact that placing the two guns off the centerline on a raised superstructure would weigh on the stability of the vessels, I just didn’t see any reason this issue couldn’t have been solved. It’s not like there’s a massive island weight off to one side of the vessel with dozens of meters of GM.

Are these other ships CONAG as well? The cost of nuclear propulsion doesn't scale directly with the number of reactors or horsepower. You're paying a large premium for a nuclear ship, then saving a few percent of that for the effective benefit of a slight decrease in the amount of replenishment these surface groups require. It really doesn't make much sense.

You'd be far better off using these reactors to power nuclear carrier escorts than ASW helicopter carriers.

Since you didn’t clearly state in your question, I’m assuming you meant by other vessels in the SAG, than no. There either COGAG or CODAG.

I give you the horsepower one, but basic economics would clearly state that the number of reactors is going to have an influence on cost. I haven’t read anything differently to state otherwise. To build a CONAG vessel with two reactors will be more expansive than with one.

Short term, no I guess it wouldn’t make much sense. But do a long-term cost benefit analyses study over the 40 to 50 years of projected operational service of these vessels and it makes perfect rational sense.

The design started off as nuclear carrier escorts.

The side effect of that broad beam and the dimensions and displacement listed is an incredibly fine hull, raising the center of gravity even more. Very low block and prismatic coefficients aren't desirable - you have to have enough displacement to support the hull. 5" of deck armor will be quite heavy indeed, and have much more of an impact on the ship than belt armor. As written the P&S class will have awful seakeeping characteristics.

Incredibly fine hull is a sort of vague term and I’m unsure what you specifically mean. All I know for certain from our limited conversations is that how I imaged the hull is shaped and looks is not the same thing as your imaging it.

OK, but you really haven’t been all that helpful to date by offering a better comparison. Based on the extensive write-up I did, what do you think would be the correct dimensions and displacement to make the two different classes work?

I loved to hear how much you think that 152mm of deck armor weighs, because I’ll tell you now it’s probably not as much as you’ve imaged based on what I was reliably able to calculate.

Awful in what way, specifics help in this case for me to refine the design. Capsize as soon as it launches? A very wet forecastle in anything above Sea State 4? Heavy listing? What?

Again, this isn't doctrine.

And Again, I already have stated it wasn’t doctrine.

This is precisely my point. Everything fits without regards to how ships actually move and float.

I tried to factor in as many variables as possible including how the vessels travel thru the water and the vessels buoyancy, including what it would be in different sea states.

Looking at the writeup, your naval community has a very bizarre design process, so I doubt I'd get very far.

Independent thought and free expression is encouraged as long as it’s not disrespectful of your higher ranked superiors. Radical thinkers if not accepted are at least tolerated. Reformers have a long tradition within the {Royal} Commonwealth Navy of making a critical impact.

It’s also probably not any more bizarre then the RL American design and procurement process.

It will be interesting to see how your incredibly sophisticated doctrine develops, although I suspect you're thinking more of how impressive something is on an NS storefront than the implications of aircraft and very long-range antiship missiles and how they affect "concentration of mass."

As my Naval doctrine is still just a jumbled collection of ideas and not yet approaching anything of a coherent concise thought, I’m not going to speculate.

By the way, you don't need a fancy computer to estimate this stuff, just some basic knowledge of the forces acting on ships.

The Province & State class has a very fine hull. Since it's a helicopter carrier, presumably the hull is full aft and very very fine forward. There won't be enough buoyancy at the bow. It'll plow into the waves, lifting the aft higher. The whole thing will pitch and roll unpredictably.

The massive deck armor will exacerbate these issues, and the armor as a whole will amplify the stress on the hull. That's when the 320 VLS tubes start to matter.

By fancy computer I was thinking something along the lines of SpringSharp which of course doesn’t work for this design since it’s outside the program’s time frame.

My understanding is all that you just described could be avoid or at the least minimized to acceptable tolerances by adjusting the flair length and width of the Forecastle, the right Bulbous bow design that would be optimized for the vessels in question and the specific hydrodynamic shape of the keel. I’m positive there are many design considerations that could be utilize to ensure the bow of the vessel has sufficient buoyancy.

Many nations were able to master the complexity of building massively armored ships with heavy weapon loads stressing the hull with technology that today seems antiqued. Yet, somehow, a modern navy can’t figure those problems out with lighter more modular weapon systems.

[Taihei Tengoku]

They did it by having thicker hulls.

[Triplebaconation]

Well, fuller.

The Moskvas had similarly fine hulls, so it's entirely possible. I wouldn't expect much different results though.

I had the same thought about the Navy Fact File being an odd one off, so I went thru my quite extensive collection of naval books where Aegis {AEGIS} would get a mention. I again found examples of it used both ways, leading me to conclude it’s not a rule, but determined more by ones personal preferences, I.E. it’s merely semantics.

Semantics refers to the meaning of words. Whether it is capitalized or not is a purely stylistic choice, not a matter of semantics - which has nothing to do with personal preferences.

Semantics is not a "grammar rule" at all. Grammar is syntax.

[Mitheldalond]

So here's an amusing excercise. I found my first attempt at designing an NS warship from over 6 years ago. It's your standard MT nuclear battleship, and is of course, utterly ridiculous. What's funny is comparing it to UE's State/Province classes and seeing some pretty similar thought processes and design choices (armor, lots of guns and CIWS, arsenal ship/carrier hybrid).

I have a question: Why are you lot using E-2's to do maritime search?

I'm not. I'm using the E-2s for, well, airborne early warning and control. They're supposed to be either orbiting my fleet or patrolling between my fleet and the most likely direction an attack will come from. Their job is to detect hostile aircraft and anti-ship missiles at a stand-off range from the fleet, and to vector my own fighters and SAMs in to deal with them. They are essential to expanding the fleet's AAW range beyond the 30-50 km radar horizon, and are far too valuable to be risked finding the enemy surface fleet, which is generally considered a suicide mission.

For actual maritime search (or in this case, scouting for a carrier group) I use essentially A160 Hummingbird helicopter UAVs launched from both the carrier and escort ships to actually find the enemy fleet, followed up by a salvo of networked anti-ship cruise missiles capable of autonomously finding and targeting enemy ships, and working together to launch a coordinated attack. There are also Fleet-class USVs that, while primarily there to create a denser anti-submarine screen, are also capable of detecting enemy ships.

I also use the basic P-3/P-8 and MQ-4 combo for general surveillance.

[United Earthlings]

So here's an amusing excercise. I found my first attempt at designing an NS warship from over 6 years ago. It's your standard MT nuclear battleship, and is of course, utterly ridiculous. What's funny is comparing it to UE's State/Province classes and seeing some pretty similar thought processes and design choices (armor, lots of guns and CIWS, arsenal ship/carrier hybrid).

Not the best comparison to use between two designs...


Similar thought processes and design choices would be my similar first attempt Eradicate Class Battleship Naval design from 11 years ago back when Jolt was still hosting these forums and the SD craze had overtaken the International Incidents, you know before there was even a sub GE&T forum. Fun times, fun times...


Furthermore, considering I retconned the design years ago, which should speak for itself, probably around the same time you proposed that linked design of yours, that's the amusing part. One door closes, another one opens. I guess we all have to be utterly ridiculous novices at the start.

However, I still think I'm slightly ahead in winning the least ridiculous naval design because even I was never insane enough to attempt to place ballistic missile tubes on any of my naval designs other than the one where it actually belongs, on a SSBN. I still till this day don’t understand why so many people had this obsession to slap all these Ballistic Missiles on their naval designs. I got the SD craze, but that craze…

P.S. Thanks for the trip down memory lane.

[Mitheldalond]

Reactors output heat, not "shaft horsepower," which is power delivered to the shaft. The associated steam turbines in an IEP setup wouldn't even have their output measured in shp.

While this is true, I'd argue that expressing reactor output in terms of the shp it enables the engines to develop is at least somewhat useful for comparing the propulsion systems of different ships. There are better and more correct ways of doing it though.

I thought the same thing at first, hence why I went and checked first this English Grammar Book I saved from my college days.

If you're a millennial, you haven't graduated college yet.

And if it was AEGIS (it isn't), then pray tell, what does the acronym stand for?

The gun layout is more for fire angles than capability as it is historically with secondary batteries.

The better question is: what is your carrier-arsenal ship hybrid doing providing shore bombardment, as that is the only role AGS is suited for. Or would be suited for, if it was actually a gun, rather than the billion dollar 100+ ton stowable flagpole the complete lack of any kind of ammunition whatsoever has turned it into.

I loved to hear how much you think that 152mm of deck armor weighs, because I’ll tell you now it’s probably not as much as you’ve imaged based on what I was reliably able to calculate.

For a ship that size, you're looking at 3000-4000 long tons, at least.

Incredibly fine hull is a sort of vague term and I’m unsure what you specifically mean.

No, actually, it's a very specific term with a very clear meaning in naval engineering, and has been for centuries. It means you have a very low block coefficient for the draught and other dimensions of your ship.

Awful in what way, specifics help in this case for me to refine the design. Capsize as soon as it launches? A very wet forecastle in anything above Sea State 4? Heavy listing? What?

As TBN said, it's performance will be very similar to (and probably worse than, given all the extra weight of armor and hundreds of VLS missiles) the Moskvas. As in, so terrible that the Soviets literally stopped building them specifically because they were such bad seaboats.

You're likely looking at excessive pitching and rolling, further exacerbated by the extra top weight of a thick armored deck. The ships will be incapable of operating helicopters in all but the most mild of seas. Your missile guidance radars might even have trouble maintaining target lock in heavier seas. Your crew will absolutely hate their lives.

A bulbous bow and flaring the bow will not fix an inherently flawed hull design, or the Soviets would have fixed the Moskvas this way. They may help, but not enough.

As my Naval doctrine is still just a jumbled collection of ideas and not yet approaching anything of a coherent concise thought, I’m not going to speculate.

Really? Then I have to wonder how you know that

the Commonwealth isn’t better served by splitting its carrier groups into smaller groups, since that doesn’t reflect Commonwealth naval doctrine.

Contradicting yourself and/or backpedaling is often one of the first signs that you know you're wrong but aren't yet willing to admit it to yourself. Whether that is the case here or not, I won't say.

-snip-

The expected response. Interesting.

EDIT: The ballistic-missiles-on-boats craze at the time is likely because that was around the time the DF-21D was becoming a thing. It's also worth noting that there have been multiple RL designs to put ballistic missiles on surface ships, and at least one that actually did it.

[Mitheldalond]

Well, decided to edit a lotta stuff based on recommendations. Overall tactical picture, for those who I know will ask, is a nation overall surrounded by enemies who expects to fight a war against enemies with superior numbers. As such, warship survivability, quality, and multi-mission ability are currently in my mind as paramount.

In regards to the Harpoon thing, decided to either employ AWS (Affordable Weapons System) in 20 missile box launchers or VLS capable missiles, eliminating the need for another launcher.

Overall added a good deal more vessels, including another class of destroyer intended to be purposefully limited (To give me something to replace in the future) as well as several listings for vessels I plan to designate and describe.

Again, information seen here.

The torpedo tubes on modern ships tend to be smaller (closer to 320mm), and mostly fire exclusively anti-sub torpedoes like the Mk 46 or the MU90. I think some Russian ships do still carry larger 21" torpedo tubes though (and I think some actually use them to fire missiles).

Helicopters and ASROCs are generally going to be your more useful ASW weapons (due to their longer range) either way, and in that order.

Overall, it looks pretty good to me!

The next day our Weapons Department head CDR Foreman showed me aerial recon photos. The radar antennas were scattered all over Southeast Asia, and what remained of the trailer was lying on its side at the edge of a 30 foot diameter crater.

Oof
And just like that I've been convinced that Talos is the way of the futur of 1960 instead of big gun battleboats. <.>

Talos really is a pretty cool missile. And a SERIOUSLY huge one. Like, makes the big guns on most battleboats look significantly less impressive, huge.

[The Corparation]

Reactors output heat, not "shaft horsepower," which is power delivered to the shaft. The associated steam turbines in an IEP setup wouldn't even have their output measured in shp.

While this is true, I'd argue that expressing reactor output in terms of the shp it enables the engines to develop is at least somewhat useful for comparing the propulsion systems of different ships. There are better and more correct ways of doing it though.

I thought the same thing at first, hence why I went and checked first this English Grammar Book I saved from my college days.

If you're a millennial, you haven't graduated college yet.

And if it was AEGIS (it isn't), then pray tell, what does the acronym stand for?

1) The average millennial is in their 30s at this point.
2) I've seen a backroom or two at work, they weren't official by any means and I don't recall what they were though. Arguing over whether its AEGIS or Aegis is really dumb though. The Navy can't even keep the capitalization consistent on the same power point slide.

[Gallia-]

That's because people are still allowed to keep their jobs/lives even though they've failed to adhere to the style guide.

Never forget the lesson of the Keeper of the Hat and Keeper of the Robe.

[Ormata]

Idea:

Larger fishing trawler operating under no hull number, military ensign, or uniformed personnel which performs duties as a trawler aught. It would be armed with a pair of underwater 30in (Seawolf style) allowing for 21in torpedoes to 'swim out'. These torpedoes would be wire-guided only no sonar and not self-guided whatsoever. The trawler would use her commercial Furuno radar to guide the torpedoes to a close target (Within 10-ish nautical miles perhaps). If the plan went as it should, the target's navy (It's hopefully sunk) would assume a submarine attack.

And yes this is me trying to compensate for inferior conventional forces. This idea is linked to such as:
1) Use of commercial and civilian craft to lay mines (To be decided due to heavy submarine force)
2) Use of commercial and civilian craft to perform as AGIs
3) Use of the Klub K-style missile system with commercial box containers (To be decided due to massive political issues)
4) Heavy submarine to surface combatant ratio

The torpedo tubes on modern ships tend to be smaller (closer to 320mm), and mostly fire exclusively anti-sub torpedoes like the Mk 46 or the MU90. I think some Russian ships do still carry larger 21" torpedo tubes though (and I think some actually use them to fire missiles).

Helicopters and ASROCs are generally going to be your more useful ASW weapons (due to their longer range) either way, and in that order.

Overall, it looks pretty good to me!

Attempting to streamline my torpedo production via constructing a singular type of torpedo with different guidance methods. The low warhead size of a 320mm torpedo might not prove effective against some submarines and I want confirmed kills there. And yes I am following some advices from a book from 1987 so that might not be accurate lol.

Would a contra rotating rotor helicopter (such as some Russian designs the Ka-32) or intermeshing rotor helicopter (such as Kaman K-MAX) provide any benefits over a conventional style of helicopter? This is in reference to ASW, UW, VERTREP requirements.

[Kassaran]

Idea:

Larger fishing trawler operating under no hull number, military ensign, or uniformed personnel which performs duties as a trawler aught. It would be armed with a pair of underwater 30in (Seawolf style) allowing for 21in torpedoes to 'swim out'. These torpedoes would be wire-guided only no sonar and not self-guided whatsoever. The trawler would use her commercial Furuno radar to guide the torpedoes to a close target (Within 10-ish nautical miles perhaps). If the plan went as it should, the target's navy (It's hopefully sunk) would assume a submarine attack.

From my incredibly limited knowledge of submarine warfare and naval combat involving submarines, this probably wouldn't work. A submarine launching torpedoes is like a stealth fighter opening its weapons' bays, as in that is it's most visible aspect in the fight. Trawlers are noisy by nature perhaps, but you'd be firing from above any ducts and layers, meaning it'll be obvious to anyone present, including a vigilant naval task force (which will have no doubt one to two attack submarines present on escort duties at all times), that the torpedoes came from something on the surface of the water roughly a minute or two after you've launched, and at that point your trawler will likely be found out, boarded, and detained indefinitely until the end of hostilities.

And yes this is me trying to compensate for inferior conventional forces. This idea is linked to such as:
1) Use of commercial and civilian craft to lay mines (To be decided due to heavy submarine force)

Why not just use your cargo and freight aircraft already present? If need be, build up a significant Merchant Marine force if you really want to stay cheapskate on it all, but minefields are still relatively easy to lay via helicopter or aircraft if you've got the right deployment mechanisms (which should be at the most a carrier and a drogue chute)

2) Use of commercial and civilian craft to perform as AGIs
3) Use of the Klub K-style missile system with commercial box containers (To be decided due to massive political issues)

I thought most militaries actually just adapted upscaled civilian tech for run-of-the-mill technology like this (though I don't know what AGI stands for unfortunately, if someone could enlighten me please). The K-style seems perfectly suited to the role you'd like it to have, so sure. It'd make it more dangerous for your civilian shipping however, and if anyone could vector observation satellites over your country in the event of such a conflict, you'd probably be seeing most of the missiles being tracked from warehouses to the port of exit, and then having the ships they are loaded upon be noted and tracked in a similar fashion.

4) Heavy submarine to surface combatant ratio

I'd really only think you'd do that if you have a high expectation of being able to project power into the enemy's sphere of influence, which from the sounds of it, wouldn't happen. Submarines are the dreadnoughts of today, being unparalleled in force projection of their type (as Aircraft carriers cannot effectively go invisible, but the seven nukes on your ballistic missile submarine can). You'd really be focusing on building Scandanavian-style all-electrics and super-stealthy (though short-legged) submarines that could infiltrate landing fleets and wreak havoc from within enemy battlegroups, and get out without ever being discovered or detected.

Attempting to streamline my torpedo production via constructing a singular type of torpedo with different guidance methods. The low warhead size of a 320mm torpedo might not prove effective against some submarines and I want confirmed kills there. And yes I am following some advices from a book from 1987 so that might not be accurate lol.

I'm of the opinion (and again, take it with a heaping spoonful of salt, as my experience comes from mostly hanging around here and playing sub-warfare combat games) that you're probably better off just using the small-warhead torpedoes. If you're trying to sink a submarine, you're going to use torpedoes only in the most dire of circumstances (where your surface ships have detected a submarine within their perimeter and about to, or actively making, attacks on high value targets in your battlegroup), and that's where ASROC comes into play. You'd launch three or so into the water, and hope one of them catches the bastard before he goes cold, though Active Sonar on the torpedoes should pick him up almost immediately. Once a submarine is wounded, it loses most, if not all, of it's submersible capabilities and will be either scuttled, or attempt to limp away at which point you capture the ship, the crew, or secure the kill of a vital enemy offensive asset.

Would a contra rotating rotor helicopter (such as some Russian designs the Ka-32) or intermeshing rotor helicopter (such as Kaman K-MAX) provide any benefits over a conventional style of helicopter? This is in reference to ASW, UW, VERTREP requirements.

Can't talk too much on this topic though, so I'll leave this one for the for-sure armchair experts.

[Synne Industries]

I'm not going into fighting effectiveness, RCS or anything else but aesthetically are cargo aircraft good as a spaceship's design?

Details: https://www.nationstates.net/nation=syn ... id=1237719

[Connori Pilgrims]

I'm not going into fighting effectiveness, RCS or anything else but aesthetically are cargo aircraft good as a spaceship's design?

(Image)

(Image)

(Image)

Details: https://www.nationstates.net/nation=syn ... id=1237719

If you need a craft that can go from orbit to atmosphere it will have some aerodynamic features in design, but it will look nothing like a typical cargo aircraft.

BUUTTT if its just a matter of aesthetics, then you didn't need to come here. If it looks good to you, that's cool.

[Kassaran]

Go with James Cameron's Avatar Cargo Shuttles, Valkyries I believe are what they were called. They have the heavy aesthetic of a cargo jet, but also looked pretty friggin' cool.

EDIT: Basically anything that's heavy clunk aesthetic tends to nail down the cargo-ship appearance in sci fi, like Battlestar Galactica, Firefly, and the Alien franchise to name a few.

[The Akasha Colony]

Idea:

Larger fishing trawler operating under no hull number, military ensign, or uniformed personnel which performs duties as a trawler aught. It would be armed with a pair of underwater 30in (Seawolf style) allowing for 21in torpedoes to 'swim out'. These torpedoes would be wire-guided only no sonar and not self-guided whatsoever. The trawler would use her commercial Furuno radar to guide the torpedoes to a close target (Within 10-ish nautical miles perhaps). If the plan went as it should, the target's navy (It's hopefully sunk) would assume a submarine attack.

The chances of such a ship coming within sufficient range of an enemy warship to actually use this torpedo system are quite low. During wartime it is practically nil. This is already a problem for submarines, but unlike submarines which can make up for this shortcoming by being hard to find, a surface ship is easily spotted.

The solution to a shortage of conventional combat power is not to disperse already limited resources on uselessly niche weapons. It is to focus what you have on the most effective combat platforms available, and the priority list of these platforms has already been provided.

Attempting to streamline my torpedo production via constructing a singular type of torpedo with different guidance methods. The low warhead size of a 320mm torpedo might not prove effective against some submarines and I want confirmed kills there. And yes I am following some advices from a book from 1987 so that might not be accurate lol.

Penny-wise, pound-foolish. Given that the guidance system is the most expensive part of a torpedo, you aren't really going to net any savings but will increase the cost of equipping all your surface ships with large, heavyweight torpedoes. While also limiting the ability of platforms like helicopters and ASW aircraft to carry and deploy these weapons. Given that these two platforms are critical, this is a rather serious problem.

[Themyscia]

Themyscia really only started adopting modern weaponry, vehicles and technology when they ended being isolationist in the 50s. So most of our weaponry is bought or created in partnership with EU and NATO countries. Specifically Germany and the UK. The Navy has worked closely with British shipbuilders to help teach them to produce their own modern warships in the future. Due to this (for the time being) Modern Amazonian Naval ships are just the British ones with different names and different interiors.

Examples include:
The Type 23 frigate, named after Sea Goddesses.

πτβ (PTV) Brizo
The Type 45 destroyer, named after Sea Nymphs

πτβ (PTV) Dynamene