NS Military Worldbuilding Thread No. 12

[Langenia]

So if we have a large capital ship without any air cover or protection from a sub, that ship is a sitting duck for target practice, right?

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

So if we have a large capital ship without any air cover or protection from a sub, that ship is a sitting duck for target practice, right?

Yes. Especially if your battleship torpedoes it.

[Langenia]

So if we have a large capital ship without any air cover or protection from a sub, that ship is a sitting duck for target practice, right?

Yes. Especially if your battleship torpedoes it.

Thanks!

[Austrasien]

So if we have a large capital ship without any air cover or protection from a sub, that ship is a sitting duck for target practice, right?

Ships that stumble into submarines have a bad time. Much like wildebeest which walk into rivers next to alligators.

For subs the main challenge is getting to a place where ships will be. This is hard because submarines must remain very slow to preserve their stealthiness. For ships the main challenge is not going to those places and getting out safely when they do. Ships have various defenses against submarines but their efficiency is limited, how effective they are depends a lot on how well the location of the sub they are trying to find is known. It is a problem shaped like itself.

To find the submarine you must know where the submarine is. To know where the submarine is you must find it.

The zen of naval operations:

Everyone wants to know where the other side is going to send their ships, subs and aircraft so they can send their ships/subs/aircraft there first and explode the other side when they show up. The side which is better at speed chess is likely to win.

[Cossack Peoples]

What notable differences exist between solid fuel and liquid fuel ballistic missiles? For context, I was looking at the Russian liquid-fueled SLBMs compared to the solid-fueled Trident.

[New Vihenia]

What notable differences exist between solid fuel and liquid fuel ballistic missiles? For context, I was looking at the Russian liquid-fueled SLBMs compared to the solid-fueled Trident.

None, except maybe the solid fuel one would have apparent higher boost phase acceleration than liquid fueled one. Tho i wonder if this can be observable in real combat situation.

[Gallia-]

I guess if someone has a BPI submarine sitting around waiting for missile launches or something it might be useful?

[Manokan Republic]

What notable differences exist between solid fuel and liquid fuel ballistic missiles? For context, I was looking at the Russian liquid-fueled SLBMs compared to the solid-fueled Trident.

Mainly, liquid engines allow for a more complex burn design in the engine, and so in theory you can get a higher efficiency or power, which is why most large rockets that go in to space historically have used liquid oxygen and fuel, however, solid fuels often don't require the chilling and warming like liquid oxygen + liquid fuel rockets tend to, as they are often monopropellants or have an oxygen source that is stored as a solid rather than cryogenically cooled and frozen, and so, they tend to have an oxygen source ready to go, allowing them to take off and launch more quickly. When speed and efficiency is important, as well as a more versatile launching platform, being able to avoid the need for cryogenically frozen liquid oxygen, hydrogen etc. which requires a processing plant right next to the rocket in order to work and be filled up, among other things, solid rocket propellants are often more versatile and flexible in operation. This depends on the type of propellant and the type of oxidizer, with powdered solid oxidizers usually storing more efficiently and in less space than Liquid oxygen, but there are some air-breathing or liquid-oxygen and powered propellant rocket engines, they are just less common.

So basically, liquid rocket engines tend to be more efficient and more powerful for a given weight with higher energy densities and a more efficient burn, but solid one's can take off at a moment's notice and require far less logistics support and a far less complex engine design to work. In theory you could park such a rocket in the middle of nowhere and wait to launch it from a secret missile silo with little to no maintenance, where as liquid oxygen obviously would not store and you'd need a huge facility to pump it in, among other things. It's possible to mix a liquid fuel with a solid oxidizer and vice versa, but these have a tendency to explode and are still more complex, and so a single simple fast burning monopropellant that stores for a long time is usually ideal for the military, who isn't worried as much about the ultimate weight efficiency of the rocket but just being able to reach the target quickly. The main thing is storage and simplicity in design construction; lower cost, simpler missiles are better as they are generally meant to be disposable and ultimately explode on target, and the ability to store a solid oxidizer for long periods of time is also pretty useful.

[Eukaryotic Cells]

Propellant density is better with solid fuel rockets. That is, you can pack more solid fuel into a given volume than you can with many liquid fuels. This is an important consideration for many applications. The specific impulse of solid fuel is inferior compared to most liquid fuels, however. Specific impulse matters more as the total required delta-v of the mission increases.

Cryogenic propellant is largely impractical for military applications, so our choices are generally limited to storable liquid propellants or solid propellants. Many storable liquid propellant combinations tend to be highly toxic, so there are increased handling requirements when compared to solid fuel. You can mix solid stages with liquid stages if you want.

Oftentimes, which technology a nation selects is dictated by what their scientific-technical and industrial capabilities can support.

[Eukaryotic Cells]

Propellant density is better with solid fuel rockets. That is, you can pack more solid fuel into a given volume than you can with many liquid fuels. This is an important consideration for many applications. The specific impulse of solid fuel is inferior compared to most liquid fuels, however. Specific impulse matters more as the total required delta-v of the mission increases.

Cryogenic propellant is largely impractical for military applications, so our choices are generally limited to storable liquid propellants or solid propellants. Many storable liquid propellant combinations tend to be highly toxic, so there are increased handling requirements when compared to solid fuel. You can mix solid stages with liquid stages if you want.

Oftentimes, which technology a nation selects is dictated by what their scientific-technical and industrial capabilities can support.

Another thing to consider is that the mass of the stage as a whole is dictated not just by the fuel, but by the tank design and the engine design. The engines can actually make up the majority of the stage's dry mass in some liquid fueled rocket stages. In other designs, the dry mass of the engine can be small compared to the weight of the tanks and insulation. There are a lot of variables at play.

[The Akasha Colony]

What notable differences exist between solid fuel and liquid fuel ballistic missiles? For context, I was looking at the Russian liquid-fueled SLBMs compared to the solid-fueled Trident.

There's a lot of history involved that had resulted in a lot of path dependency. But generally, for submarine applications, solid-fuel ballistic missiles are considered superior primarily due to their greater safety and reduced maintenance requirements, which is why the Russians today use mostly solid fuel for their newest ballistic missiles.

In the 1950s, when the first ballistic missile submarines were being developed, the US military initially wanted to put liquid-fueled Jupiter ballistic missiles on submarines, which the Navy thought would be a terrible idea due to the volatility of said propellants and the danger to boats and crew from fuel leaks or explosions. So the Navy decided to develop its own solid-fuel solution, which became Polaris. Everything after is basically just a development of that fundamental concept: Poseidon, Trident I, and Trident II. The Air Force eventually came around to solid-fuel rockets as well for their improved safety and long-term storage capability which is why the entire US land-based deterrent is based on solid fuel designs as well.

The Soviets didn't have as much of a choice in the matter because they had gone all-in on liquid-fuel rockets and had very little experience with solid fuel. They had taken a more incremental approach to developing SLBMs and ballistic missile submarines than the US, having started earlier but fallen behind once the US started launching Polaris-armed boats en masse in the 1950s and 1960s. They dabbled with solid fuel designs but always found them to require far more volume than their more advanced liquid fuel designs, so they continued using liquid-fuel rockets despite the safety concerns. Soviet boats had plenty of other potential safety hazards at the time anyway.

Until Brezhnev got jealous of the new US Ohio-class with the claimed capabilities of the new Trident missiles and demanded a solid-fuel missile boat, which became Project 941 (Typhoon). This design shows how far behind the Soviets were in solid-fuel technology: despite being absolutely gigantic (more than twice the mass of Trident I), the R-39 missiles were barely better, and in turn required an absolutely gigantic submarine that still carried fewer missiles than the Ohios. And R-39 was far inferior to Trident II. The Soviets were well aware of these shortcomings though and continued producing Delta-class submarines carrying their normal liquid-fuel missiles at the same time as they were building the Typhoons.

Since the Russian deterrent is still largely based on Delta-class boats, the Russians are still actively upgrading their liquid-fuel R-29 missiles to more advanced models to keep them up to date. But Russian solid fuel technology has improved significantly which is why the new Borei-class boats are using the new mostly solid-fuel RSM-56, and these will replace the older Delta-class boats over the coming decades.

[New Vihenia]

Until Brezhnev got jealous of the new US Ohio-class with the claimed capabilities of the new Trident missiles and demanded a solid-fuel missile boat, which became Project 941 (Typhoon). This design shows how far behind the Soviets were in solid-fuel technology: despite being absolutely gigantic (more than twice the mass of Trident I), the R-39 missiles were barely better, and in turn required an absolutely gigantic submarine that still carried fewer missiles than the Ohios. And R-39 was far inferior to Trident II. The Soviets were well aware of these shortcomings though and continued producing Delta-class submarines carrying their normal liquid-fuel missiles at the same time as they were building the Typhoons.

Si

This is doubtful tho. The fewer number of missiles are actually politics, as Brezhnev himself said in interview

[Champagne Socialist Sharifistan]

Is it a good idea (regarding military effectiveness) to reduce minimum training requirements for those who are commissioned from the ranks? Sharifistan has lost many officers and is trying to promote Sergeants and above to officers within 4 months.

[The Akasha Colony]

Until Brezhnev got jealous of the new US Ohio-class with the claimed capabilities of the new Trident missiles and demanded a solid-fuel missile boat, which became Project 941 (Typhoon). This design shows how far behind the Soviets were in solid-fuel technology: despite being absolutely gigantic (more than twice the mass of Trident I), the R-39 missiles were barely better, and in turn required an absolutely gigantic submarine that still carried fewer missiles than the Ohios. And R-39 was far inferior to Trident II. The Soviets were well aware of these shortcomings though and continued producing Delta-class submarines carrying their normal liquid-fuel missiles at the same time as they were building the Typhoons.

Si

This is doubtful tho. The fewer number of missiles are actually politics, as Brezhnev himself said in interview

The hotlinking doesn't appear to be working for me (but pasting the link works).

In any event, I didn't say the number of missiles was due to size constraints or anything else physical or design-related, the point is simply that carrying such a gigantic missile as R-39 necessitated a similarly gigantic submarine, and that Typhoon's massive size wasn't due to simply carrying more missiles or other mitigating factors.

[Danternoust]

that Typhoon's massive size wasn't due to simply carrying more missiles or other mitigating factors.

The Soviets were well known for their gigantomania, surely institutional factors were an issue? Maybe mass production was too complex.

---

Danternoust uses bathyscape-like designs to store solid fuel rockets in the deep ocean where no one could find it.

They are activated by a specific 60 HZ command signal.

[Gallia-]

big sub = quiet and fast
smol tankii = sneaky and mobile

[Champagne Socialist Sharifistan]

Is it a good idea (regarding military effectiveness) to reduce minimum training requirements for those who are commissioned from the ranks? Sharifistan has lost many officers and is trying to promote Sergeants and above to officers within 4 months.

Is it?

[Danternoust]

Is it a good idea (regarding military effectiveness) to reduce minimum training requirements for those who are commissioned from the ranks? Sharifistan has lost many officers and is trying to promote Sergeants and above to officers within 4 months.

Is it?

Depends on paperwork requirements. If accurately filing requests for munitions are not important, or high command just ships things to where they think it is needed (up to and including mail), than yes.

[Ideal Britain]

Is it?

Depends on paperwork requirements. If accurately filing requests for munitions are not important, or high command just ships things to where they think it is needed (up to and including mail), than yes.

Thanks.

[New Vihenia]

Our MBT's in its natural habitat.

[Hurtful Thoughts]

Our MBT's in its natural habitat.

[img]

Abrams TTBs?

[The Corparation]

that Typhoon's massive size wasn't due to simply carrying more missiles or other mitigating factors.

The Soviets were well known for their gigantomania, surely institutional factors were an issue? Maybe mass production was too complex.

---

Danternoust uses bathyscape-like designs to store solid fuel rockets in the deep ocean where no one could find it.

They are activated by a specific 60 HZ command signal.

Shoving missiles in a capsule and mooring them on the ocean floor was considered by the US for the MX missile but was rejected for a number of reasons, among which where the fact they concluded that yes people would in fact be able to find them.


For reference the Hydra referred to here is a similar capsule but just dumped into the ocean which was rejected for numerous obvious reasons.

[Gallia-]

TBF, all of those dumb exotic basing methods were invented simply to make the Racetrack look good in comparison, rather than any practical security or engineering concerns.

[New Vihenia]

Abrams TTBs?

Nah..We dont use lame acronym for our tank... She is "Alessa"

Shoving missiles in a capsule and mooring them on the ocean floor was considered by the US for the MX missile but was rejected for a number of reasons, among which where the fact they concluded that yes people would in fact be able to find them.

So that's kind of like "Super-Mega Captor" there except it's missile.

[Republic of Penguinian Astronautia]

The Soviets were well known for their gigantomania, surely institutional factors were an issue? Maybe mass production was too complex.

---

Danternoust uses bathyscape-like designs to store solid fuel rockets in the deep ocean where no one could find it.

They are activated by a specific 60 HZ command signal.

Shoving missiles in a capsule and mooring them on the ocean floor was considered by the US for the MX missile but was rejected for a number of reasons, among which where the fact they concluded that yes people would in fact be able to find them.


For reference the Hydra referred to here is a similar capsule but just dumped into the ocean which was rejected for numerous obvious reasons.

My favorite!
Reminds me of something I read by Robert Ballard saying that deep diving submersibles will be able to hunt SSBNs at sea, and they'll need to be replace by ocean floor mounted delivery systems.