Is Magoose mate, and secondly, I think @HeroCooky won't approve of my dice being rolled without permission.
I'm on a phone, do the math.
I'd rather not roll for the debts the sailors accumulated until I get permission to do so.
Not the math I was referring to.
Alright, first I am going to get this out of the way and say that I am picking a towed sonar array as my hill to die on. If we don't have space to fit it in the sub, we need to make space for it. The only way we can make this more than ASW warfare target practice is if we get enough listening capability to detect enemy vessels before or at the same time they can detect us. A towed array is always going to be more sensitive than onboard systems since its further away from the hull and machinery noises, while also conveniently covering the big gaping blindspot to the aft that the nose sonar setup will always have, no matter how good a system it is. Sure it might have some problems in shallow areas, but so will anyone else trying to operate one there so we're back to even ground, and won't be at a disadvantage if we are fighting somewhere that does allow for their deployment. Most of the drooping line issues can just be solved by having the submarine keep moving a bit when the array is deployed, since the water flow will keep it up like a streamer in the wind.
Hey, why am I getting funny ratings?
[] De-Escalation
[] +2 to Tigerstripefish Design Action
)
When things go wrong...inevitably with this plan. Because this is a terrible idea, and the American already knows about our mech via Negaverse and Omake.
Sorry I over reacted a little and ran the worse possible situation in my head.
The problem I feel we are facing when designing a submarine is that we have to temper what we want with what we can actually make.I'm still uncomfortable with the towed array but if you're dead set on it... we might want to adjust it's buoyancy upward a bit, somewhere between that of a military array that sinks and a geophysical one that's neutral.
We'll want to make space on board for it too. Using a clip on array will be a pain in litoral waters.
Would a collapsible sail be acceptable? A bit out there, but given Laughpanzer tech... (also known as: 'please don't make me give up the clean sleek aesthetic of no-sail
I can move the torpedo tubes but I don't understand what you mean about capsizing? Wouldn't putting the ballast tanks on the bottom make it likelier to capsize? Do you mean putting the torpedoes on the bottom?
The rotary magazine was loosely based on this. Now, if the rotary magazine is a no go, why not forgo reloads altogether and store the torpedoes in the tubes they launch from? The sub isn't going do out for more that two weeks at a time and it's a small sub, so would it be that big a deal if the crew can't access the torpedoes? Three tubes, three torpedoes stacked per tube?
As for LOx, the old Soviet Quebecs used it directly to run one of their diesel engines. A Stirling AIP is more controlled in terms of how it's burned I think? If we can't crack it we can switch to diesel, but otherwise working with LOx will be good practice for rockets?
The problem I feel we are facing when designing a submarine is that we have to temper what we want with what we can actually make.
I would love to have an optronics mast rather than a periscope, but as far as I can tell the first optronic systems on submarines were being experimented on by the big countries in the mid 90s, with them only starting mass production for use around the turn of the century. I don't think Gay North Korea that can barely feed it's people will be making them in 1974. The Iron Tiger may have given us the cables, but no one in the world is close to the sensors right now.
Going sail-less would be nice for reduced drag and other things. However without optronics magic I don't know how well a folding periscope would work as we'd have to figure out how to fold and unfold a hollow cylinder underwater while having it remain watertight at all times. Any help we could beg from China or the USSR would also only be in the form of vertically mounted, collapsible periscopes stored in a sail, since that's what they use. So I don't think we are going to be able to ditch the sail for our first sub design either.
That fancy rotating drum automated magazine would be great, but what you posted is a "what if" picture of a theoretical submarine built in 2040. For reference, here is a video of loading a training torpedo in the Virginia-class submarine, a design first laid down in 2000, 25 years from now, with the industrial and technological support of the USA. Lots of mechanical assistance to move the heavy torpedo, but still a very human-involved process.
For all my talk of "new technology" used in the Tigerstripe all of that is only technology that already exists and we would just be some of the first people to put it all together on a submarine, because I don't think we are going to be able to afford anything more than that as a small Asian communist nation.
- Pump-jets: First modern jet boat made in 1950s, with a functional prototype boat made in 1932.
- Electric torpedoes, and acoustic homing: both developed in WW2.
- Wire guidance: The most "new tech" one with the earliest example I found being the Mk48 made in 1972, but we have Iron Tiger electronics to help us here.
- Titanium Hull: Titanium is a known strong material, and magnetic detection of subs has been a thing since WW2.
- Iron Tiger Engines and Fuel: We have them already and they're better than normal diesel engines.
The ballast needs to be mounted low to keep the submarine's center of gravity below it's center of buoyancy. If G is below B the submarine is stable and will want to straighten out right side up. If G is above B the submarine is unstable and will want to straighten out upside down.
As for storing torpedoes in the tubes inaccessible to the crew, if you want to maintain the same combat effectiveness as the Tigerfishstripe you would need to find a way to fit 12 torpedo tubes on it somehow, and the ability to wire guide all 12 of them as the crew won't be able to access them to connect them to the guidance system.
On the LOx and the AIP, the reason I am not of making the only engine AIP is I don't think they are good enough in 1974 to power a submarine by themselves, with the wiki page for AIP saying this:
Later down the page in the section specifically about Stirling engines I found this for a 1990s sub:
And on the Quebec-class subs and the LOx there, one they didn't use Stirling engines, they used closed-cycle diesel. Two, they only displaced 540t submerged which is quite a bit smaller than the sizes we are talking about. And three, looking at their page got me this paragraph:
Maybe that's what you meant but that certainly isn't what you said. At all.
T: Have at least some submarines, so that we can move the sonar buoys and mines around undetected. Also for the occasional surprise torpedo in places they think they've cleared already.
That SOUNDS LIKE SOMETHING THE US GOVERNMENT WOULD DO!
I mean. The air force needs to find some way to get the Mecha money for their own projects.
